Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Open-core model

The open-core model is a hybrid software licensing and business strategy wherein a company's foundational product components are released under permissive open-source licenses to encourage widespread adoption, community contributions, and rapid iteration, while proprietary modules delivering enterprise-scale features such as advanced security, high-availability clustering, and dedicated support are monetized through subscriptions or licenses. This model enables developers to build upon a freely accessible base, fostering innovation and reducing initial , as evidenced by accelerated product maturation through external contributions and lower total ownership costs compared to fully alternatives. Companies employing it, including for its platform and for search analytics, have achieved substantial commercial success, with attaining public market status and billions in valuation by differentiating core open-source capabilities from paid enhancements tailored for large-scale deployments. Despite these advantages, the open-core approach has sparked debate within the open-source ecosystem, with critics arguing it fragments by sequestering critical advancements in closed codebases, thereby discouraging broad and risking vendor-specific lock-in that contravenes the communal principles of fully open projects. Proponents counter that it sustains long-term investment in open foundations without relying on donations or ads, though instances of contributor agreements extracting copyrights for proprietary use have intensified scrutiny over alignment with open-source ideals.

Definition and Overview

Core Principles

The open-core model constitutes a licensing and in which a foundational, open-source-licensed "core" is made freely available to users and contributors, complemented by extensions that deliver enhanced capabilities. This core must exhibit sufficient standalone functionality to enable practical adoption and scrutiny, thereby cultivating community involvement and validating technical viability without immediate revenue dependence. However, the model intentionally withholds scalability, performance optimizations, management tools, or integration features critical for enterprise-scale deployment, positioning these as paid add-ons to capture value from high-stakes commercial use cases. At its foundation, the approach prioritizes causal economic incentives over ideological commitments to unrestricted openness, recognizing that pure (OSS) frequently encounters funding shortfalls due to misaligned contributor motivations and the , where widespread usage erodes incentives for sustained investment. Empirical observations from software ecosystems demonstrate that without proprietary revenue streams, projects risk stagnation as development costs escalate with user bases, leading developers to seek alternative mechanisms. The open-core framework mitigates this by harnessing viral distribution and from the open component to lower acquisition costs and build ecosystems, while proprietary layers enable direct monetization aligned with demonstrated demand. This delineation ensures the open core remains a credible, modifiable base that avoids perceptions of bait-and-switch tactics, as the limitations are transparently documented to prevent community backlash, though success hinges on maintaining a clear boundary that does not undermine the core's perceived integrity. Proponents argue it pragmatically balances collaborative innovation with control, fostering long-term project viability in competitive markets where pure models have empirically yielded inconsistent financial outcomes for maintainers.

Distinction from Pure Open Source

The open-core model diverges from pure (OSS) by design, wherein pure OSS entails the unrestricted release of all components under open licenses, fostering viability through community-driven contributions, optional donations, or ancillary services like hosting and , mechanisms that frequently result in funding shortfalls for core maintenance due to reliance on volunteer or sporadic corporate inputs without leverage. In open-core implementations, a baseline functional core remains openly licensed to encourage adoption and feedback, but modules containing advanced capabilities—such as enterprise-grade scaling, security integrations, or specialized analytics—are withheld, establishing a deliberate mechanism that channels revenue from paying customers back into core development. This structural bifurcation fundamentally alters incentives: pure OSS projects prioritize broad accessibility and , often leading to development paces dictated by contributor availability and , whereas open-core prioritizes sustainability, with sponsoring firms directing resources toward features that enhance the core's appeal while subsidizing upsells, thereby aligning innovation trajectories with market demands from users. The causal outcome manifests in company-led acceleration of core iterations, as proprietary income reduces dependency on unpredictable external funding, contrasting the volunteer-constrained progress in many pure OSS endeavors where maintainer burnout or shifting priorities can stall momentum. Empirical observations from open-core practitioners underscore this divergence, with firms like and exhibiting robust commit volumes to their open cores predominantly from internal teams funded by enterprise licensing, enabling consistent release cadences that outpace typical pure projects sustained by intermittent community involvement. Such patterns highlight how open-core's hybrid licensing facilitates resource concentration on foundational code, without the full mandate to open innovations, thus preserving incentives for differentiation.

Historical Development

Early Adoption in the 2000s

The open-core model gained early traction in the early as developers and firms grappled with monetizing amid the dot-com bust's aftermath, which revealed the inadequacies of donation- or service-dependent strategies for sustaining intricate projects like . , established in 1995 by , David Axmark, and Allan Larsson, transitioned to this paradigm by relicensing its management system under the GNU General Public License in 2000, facilitating widespread adoption while retaining dual-licensing provisions that permitted proprietary integrations via paid commercial agreements. This dual structure, a foundational open-core variant, initially triggered an 80% revenue decline but rebounded within a year, achieving 2 million active installations by 2001 and proving effective for channeling funds into core maintenance and enhancements without forgoing community contributions. By emphasizing OEM dual licensing as its revenue mainstay, MySQL AB pivoted toward enterprise viability around 2004, introducing recurring models like the 2005 MySQL Network subscriptions for advanced monitoring and support tools unavailable in the open core. Growth metrics reflected this causal alignment between proprietary revenue streams and open accessibility: installations doubled to 4 million by 2003 alongside $12 million in annual revenue, escalating to 8 million users and $50 million by 2006 with a workforce of 320. The approach mitigated prior open-source pitfalls, such as insufficient scalable income for rigorous testing and feature parity in high-stakes environments, enabling MySQL to compete against closed-source incumbents on performance and cost. Contemporary accounts lauded the model for democratizing database access while underwriting innovation, with observers highlighting its draw for resource-constrained enterprises through flexible licensing that undercut rivals' pricing. Purist concerns over proprietary carve-outs surfaced sporadically but drew scant traction in an era of maturing open-source conventions, where pragmatic sustainability trumped ideological uniformity; this validation propelled to acquire for $1 billion in January 2008.

Maturation and Proliferation Post-2010

The open-core model proliferated in the post-2010 era as cloud-native applications and workloads demanded scalable, developer-friendly infrastructure, enabling companies to fund open-source improvements through layers. , initially developed by 10gen and publicly released on February 11, 2009, exemplified this maturation by open-sourcing its database while layering on closed-source features for deployments, such as advanced replication and tools. This supported explosive growth, with securing over $150 million in venture funding by 2015 to enhance the open , reflecting demands for reliable in distributed systems. Elasticsearch further illustrated the model's scaling potential when Shay Banon open-sourced it in February 2010 as a , pairing the core with proprietary modules for , alerting, and via Elastic's commercial offerings. This approach fueled rapid adoption in log analytics and , culminating in Elastic's valuation by 2015 through rounds that backed core enhancements amid surging cloud data volumes. Oracle's January 27, 2010, completion of its $7.4 billion acquisition of —which controlled —intensified scrutiny on corporate stewardship of open-source assets, prompting community forks like and debates over innovation stagnation under proprietary incentives. Yet, the episode affirmed open-core's resilience, as it empowered vendors to sustain investment in communal cores without ceding full control, contrasting with fully open models vulnerable to acquisition-driven changes and bolstering the strategy's appeal for data-intensive tools. Analyst evaluations, including those from RedMonk, underscored the model's empirical traction by the late 2010s, with open-core adopters demonstrating superior commercial sustainability in open-source ecosystems through differentiated enterprise capabilities that aligned with cloud-era monetization.

Operational Mechanics

Structuring Open and Proprietary Components

In the open-core model, the software architecture delineates a foundational open-source core from proprietary extensions through modular design principles that prioritize integration flexibility and intellectual property protection. The core encompasses essential functionalities, such as create, read, update, and delete (CRUD) operations in database systems or basic version control in development platforms, implemented to operate independently as a viable production system for smaller-scale or non-enterprise deployments. These core components are typically released under permissive licenses like Apache 2.0 or copyleft licenses such as GPL, which permit broad redistribution and modification to foster user adoption and community-driven enhancements without imposing stringent commercial restrictions. Proprietary components, conversely, address scalability and enterprise demands—such as distributed clustering for high-throughput or role-based controls with auditing—structured as pluggable modules or layered services that with the core via standardized or extension points. This enables proprietary additions to leverage the core's without embedding sensitive algorithms directly, reducing the risk of reverse-engineering or unauthorized forking while allowing users to extend functionality incrementally. trade-offs here emphasize layers, such as service-oriented interfaces, to ensure proprietary modules can be dynamically loaded or unloaded, maintaining core and across releases. Best practices advocate avoiding a "crippled core," where essential features are deliberately withheld from the open version to manufacture dependency on paid upgrades, as this erodes trust and hinders organic adoption; instead, the open core must deliver complete, uncompromised utility for its intended scope, as evidenced by sustained user bases in models where the free tier supports real-world production use without artificial limitations. Such structuring aligns with causal incentives for developer engagement, where a robust core attracts contributions that indirectly benefit development, while clear of component boundaries prevents ambiguities and supports legal enforceability of licenses.

Contributor License Agreements and Governance

In the open-core model, contributor license agreements (CLAs) serve as a critical governance tool by requiring contributors to grant the sponsoring company perpetual, irrevocable rights to relicense submitted code under proprietary terms, in addition to the applied to the core repository. This dual-rights structure allows companies to integrate community contributions into enterprise-grade features without facing assertions from contributors, thereby enabling the of value-added components. Permissive open-source licenses like or 2.0, when paired with CLAs, facilitate this relicensing flexibility, distinguishing open-core from purely community-driven projects where such commercial control is absent. GitLab, an early adopter of open-core practices, introduced a CLA in 2015 to manage contributions to its dual-licensed codebase, ensuring that external inputs could be incorporated into proprietary enterprise editions while protecting . This approach balanced openness with commercial imperatives by enforcing CLA signatures for merge requests, allowing to hire or collaborate with contributors whose work aligned with its revenue model. However, in November 2017, shifted to a Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO) combined with explicit project licensing, citing reduced friction for contributors while maintaining governance over code integration. Through CLAs and centralized , open-core companies retain authority over project direction, including , feature prioritization, and release cadences, to prevent adversarial that could replicate or expose elements and erode subscription-based revenue. This mechanism causally supports by permitting the absorption of talent—such as hiring contributors who pre-sign corporate CLAs—without risking loss of exclusive rights to enhanced functionalities. from open-core successes indicates that such structures mitigate fork risks, as seen in cases where companies leverage CLA-granted rights to defend against competitive derivatives.

Monetization Strategies

Enterprise Features and Support

In the open-core model, is primarily derived from subscription-based editions that extend the open-source core with proprietary modules tailored for production-scale environments. These include advanced security features such as encryption at rest, role-based access controls, and auditing capabilities; compliance s like GDPR, HIPAA, and PCI-DSS alignment; and high-availability tools encompassing automated , multi-region replication, and performance optimization for mission-critical workloads. Such enhancements demand substantial resources for , testing, and maintenance, which community-driven open-source projects typically cannot sustain without commercial backing. Support contracts represent another core monetization avenue, offering agreements (SLAs) with guaranteed response times—often 24/7 for critical issues—alongside for deployment, , and custom integrations. For example, Enterprise Advanced bundles these with tools like Ops Manager for real-time monitoring and alerting, enabling enterprises to achieve operational reliability beyond self-supported open-source usage. This structure funds proprietary development while providing value to customers scaling beyond basic needs, as evidenced by dedicated support tiers in models like GitLab's and subscriptions, which include advanced deployment and not available in the edition. By tying payments to verifiable high-value deliverables like SLAs and specialized features, the model aligns developer incentives with user demands for dependability at , circumventing free-rider challenges inherent in purely communal open-source where heavy users disproportionately benefit without proportional contributions. customers, facing regulatory and costs, willingly pay premiums—often annual subscriptions scaled by usage or seats—for these assurances, sustaining in the core while differentiating from commoditized alternatives.

Restrictions on Commercial Use

In open-core models, restrictions on commercial use typically involve license clauses that prohibit third-party providers, especially cloud hyperscalers, from offering the open-source core as a managed service without either contributing modifications back to the community or licensing the service itself under similar terms. The , introduced by in October 2018, serves as a prominent example; it mandates that if the software is used to provide a service to third parties, the entire service codebase—including hosting, management, and support layers—must be released under SSPL, thereby limiting uncompensated commoditization by entities like (AWS). Elastic NV implemented similar safeguards in January 2021 by relicensing and under a dual SSPL and Elastic License 2.0 framework, departing from the 2.0 license to explicitly bar cloud vendors from reselling hosted versions without reciprocity or payment. This move targeted practices such as AWS's launch of , a forked derivative of , which allowed the hyperscaler to profit from managed deployments without sharing upstream development expenses. These provisions pragmatically defend against free-riding, where hyperscalers leverage the core's value for their platforms—evident in AWS's ElastiCache for and DocumentDB (a MongoDB-compatible service)—while externalizing R&D costs onto original developers, as permissive licenses in pure open-source projects permit forks and hosted offerings without obligation. By enforcing contribution or disclosure for service-based uses, such clauses sustain vendor viability, enabling revenue from extensions and direct support rather than allowing extraction that undermines long-term maintenance, a risk amplified in cloud-dominated markets.

Notable Examples

Database and Data Management Tools

exemplifies the open-core model in databases, releasing its core under the (SSPL) since its initial version 1.0 in August 2009, while reserving advanced features like enterprise-grade management tools and the Atlas cloud-hosted service for licensing. This structure supports flexible, schema-free data storage suited to data-intensive applications, with the open core enabling broad developer experimentation and the proprietary extensions providing scalability for production workloads, as evidenced by 's exceeding $27 billion as of October 2025. Elasticsearch, the foundational component of the ELK Stack (Elasticsearch, Logstash, Kibana), operates similarly by maintaining its core distributed search and analytics engine as open source under dual licensing that includes SSPL, while gating enterprise-specific capabilities such as advanced security plugins, machine learning integrations, and alerting features behind proprietary subscriptions. Initially licensed under Apache 2.0, Elastic shifted to more restrictive terms in January 2021 with version 7.11 to curb cloud providers like AWS from offering undifferentiated managed services without reciprocity, thereby preserving revenue streams from proprietary value-adds tailored to high-volume log analysis and real-time search in big data environments. These adaptations have facilitated swift integration into pipelines, where the open handle ingestion and querying at scale— for persistent storage and for —driving adoption in sectors like and e-commerce . However, reliance on layers for mission-critical enhancements has constrained community ; for instance, AWS's of post-2021 license change replicates the core but diverges on enterprise modules, limiting its appeal for users needing seamless upgrades to closed-source optimizations. This dynamic underscores how open-core databases balance communal innovation with commercial viability in handling petabyte-scale workloads.

Development and Collaboration Platforms

, initiated as an open-source project in October 2011, represents a prominent application of the open-core model within development and collaboration platforms. It delivers a comprehensive DevSecOps platform with core functionalities available under the , while Ultimate tier additions provide enterprise-grade , advanced scanning, and regulatory tools essential for deployments. This stratification enables widespread adoption of baseline , issue tracking, and CI/CD pipelines, fostering collaboration, while reserving scalable governance features for paid subscribers. The model's efficacy is evidenced by GitLab's financial trajectory, with fiscal year 2024 revenue totaling $579.9 million, marking 37% growth from the prior year, sustained through open-core monetization that leverages community-driven enhancements alongside proprietary innovations. SEC disclosures affirm GitLab's positioning as a DevSecOps platform predicated on this open-core foundation, which has facilitated outpacing pure open-source alternatives in feature velocity and market penetration by reinvesting commercial proceeds into tools like integrated auto-devops and merge request approvals. Comparable implementations appear in platforms like , which maintains an open-source core for code intelligence and search under Apache 2.0, augmented by proprietary enterprise capabilities for batch changes and advanced analytics tailored to large-scale codebases. HashiCorp's similarly employs open-core principles, offering an MPL-licensed community edition for secrets management with enterprise extensions for features such as replication and namespaces, supporting collaborative infrastructure automation in commercial settings. These structures align open-core with the demands of distributed teams, permitting free core usage for prototyping and integration while gating proprietary layers that address production-scale reliability and compliance.

Advantages and Empirical Benefits

Sustainability for Development

The open-core model sustains development by channeling enterprise revenue into full-time engineering resources for the open-source core, enabling consistent maintenance and evolution without reliance on sporadic donations or volunteer labor. Companies employing this approach, such as prior to its January 2008 acquisition by for $1 billion, leveraged commercial licensing and support contracts to fund dedicated teams, which grew alongside widespread adoption and ensured ongoing enhancements to the core database engine. This structure addresses common OSS pitfalls like maintainer attrition, as corporate incentives prioritize professional-grade output over ad-hoc contributions. Company accelerates iteration and responses in open-core projects, where revenue justifies allocating engineers to , testing, and deployment—processes often slowed in volunteer-led initiatives by coordination overhead. Firms commit to upstreaming critical fixes to the core to safeguard their commercial viability, avoiding the delays of distributed models. For instance, open-core providers routinely backport patches to editions to uphold trust and mitigate reputational risks tied to SLAs. This revenue-backed focus empirically bolsters project longevity, as evidenced by the persistence of open-core databases and tools through market fluctuations, where self-funding via user-aligned monetization outpaces grant-dependent or purely ideological efforts in resource allocation.

Market Adoption and Economic Impact

The open-core model has facilitated substantial market adoption among software vendors seeking sustainable revenue from open-source foundations, evidenced by high valuations of leading practitioners. As of October 2025, MongoDB, a prominent open-core database provider, maintains a market capitalization of approximately $27 billion, reflecting investor confidence in its hybrid approach of freely available core functionality paired with proprietary enterprise extensions. Similarly, GitLab reached a market capitalization exceeding $15 billion shortly after its October 2021 initial public offering, where shares priced at $77 and surged in debut trading, underscoring the model's capacity to generate billions in enterprise value through scalable monetization. These outcomes demonstrate how open-core enables value creation on the scale of proprietary software incumbents, with companies raising capital faster and at higher multiples than purely closed-source peers due to the viral distribution of open components. Widespread adoption is further quantified by the explosion in usage of open-core software cores, contributing to broader open-source growth where downloads and contributions number in the billions annually. Open-source registries and platforms facilitate billions of package downloads monthly, with open-core projects amplifying this by offering accessible entry points that drive experimentation and integration across industries. A fraction of these users—typically in the low single digits based on software-as-a-service benchmarks—convert to paid tiers for advanced features like enhanced security, scalability, and support, yet the sheer volume scales to multimillion-dollar annual recurring revenues for adopters. This dynamic has boosted overall open-source economic value, with demand-side estimates attributing trillions in avoided development costs to freely available cores that underpin enhancements. Economically, the model fosters causal against closed-source giants by democratizing technologies, allowing resource-constrained innovators to challenge established vendors through rapid user acquisition without upfront licensing barriers. This lowers entry costs, spurs in underserved segments, and rewards differentiation in high-value areas like and optimization, ultimately expanding the software rather than merely redistributing shares. from open-core successes indicates sustained investment in development, with firms leveraging on cores to refine paid offerings, thereby sustaining long-term amid alternatives' higher acquisition expenses.

Criticisms and Controversies

Ideological Objections from OSS Purists

Critics within the , aligned with the Free Software Foundation's (FSF) philosophy, contend that the open-core model contradicts the moral imperative of complete software by appending extensions that deny users the right to modify or distribute essential functionalities. This approach, they argue, transforms collaborative open-source efforts into a vehicle for commercial restriction, eroding the foundational ethos of unrestricted sharing and user autonomy. Community discourse often levels accusations of a "bait-and-switch" strategy against open-core implementations, where developers are enticed to contribute to an ostensibly communal codebase only for the company to sequester high-value features behind paywalls, thereby capturing contributions without reciprocal openness. Such practices are portrayed as diluting the open-source collaborative spirit, substituting market-driven incentives for the intrinsic motivations of peer production and knowledge commons. While the (OSI) has approved licenses enabling open-core structures provided the core adheres to open-source criteria, purist factions interpret the model's hybrid nature as a for , prioritizing ideological purity over pragmatic . In OSS forums and media outlets, these critiques are routinely amplified as emblematic of corporate encroachment on communal ideals, frequently embedding norms that elevate "openness" as an ethical absolute while sidelining evidence of inefficiencies in unmonetized, volunteer-led projects. This framing reflects a broader tendency in ideologically oriented OSS communities to decry hybrid models, notwithstanding their disconnect from real-world dynamics where pure communal governance often yields under-resourced or stalled initiatives.

Practical Risks and Case Studies of Failures

One prominent practical risk in the open-core model arises from community backlash against perceived erosions of , often manifesting as that fragment ecosystems and erode the original project's market position. In January 2021, , maintainer of —an open-core with a freely licensed core and proprietary enterprise extensions—shifted its licensing from Apache 2.0 to the more restrictive (SSPL) and Elastic License. This move aimed to curb hyperscalers like AWS from offering without reciprocal contributions, but it prompted AWS to 7.10 into , a fully Apache-licensed alternative that quickly gained traction among users wary of license dependencies. By 2024, had established its own governance under the , drawing contributions from multiple vendors and reducing Elastic's control over the 's evolution, with surveys indicating a portion of enterprises migrating to avoid proprietary lock-in risks. Similar dynamics emerged with , where open-core strains—balancing a BSD-licensed core with paid enterprise modules—culminated in a March 2024 license shift to the and SSPL, explicitly to counter providers commoditizing the . This decision, driven by Redis Inc.'s need to protect revenue from managed offerings, triggered immediate forks, including Valkey backed by AWS, , , and the in April 2024, which preserved the permissive BSD terms and attracted developer migrations concerned over future availability. The fork's rapid adoption, evidenced by integrations in major distributions and services, underscored how abrupt changes in open-core delineations can accelerate user defection, with later partially reverting to AGPLv3 in May 2025 amid ongoing community fragmentation. Execution pitfalls, such as designing a "crippled " where essential functionalities are withheld to incentivize upgrades, have also alienated users by fostering perceptions of bait-and-switch tactics. Analyses distinguish true open-—providing a robust, standalone open component—from crippled variants that intentionally limit scalability or integrations in the free tier, leading to developer frustration and reduced contributions. For instance, early deployments, operating under an open-core with core database under SSPL since October 2018, faced complaints about incomplete tooling and driver dependencies pushing toward paid Atlas services, contributing to decisions like Homebrew's 2019 removal of from its core formulas due to licensing opacity. Such cases illustrate how unclear boundaries between open and closed components erode trust, prompting users to seek fully open alternatives like extensions, even if ideological critiques sometimes amplify isolated shortcomings beyond their empirical scale.

Legal and Licensing Considerations

Dual Licensing Approaches

In dual licensing strategies within open-core models, the core codebase is typically released under a open-source license such as the GNU General Public License (GPL) or (AGPL), permitting community use and modification subject to reciprocity requirements, while the same code is simultaneously offered under a for customers seeking to avoid open-source obligations like source code disclosure. This approach grants flexibility by allowing the holder—often the sponsoring company—to distribute identical software under multiple terms, enabling revenue from users who embed the software in closed-source products or services without triggering GPL viral effects. Contributor License Agreements (CLAs) facilitate this dual-use by requiring contributors to grant the project maintainer perpetual rights to relicense their submissions, including into proprietary extensions or full enterprise editions, thus aligning community input with commercial needs without forking the codebase. For instance, has employed GPL dual licensing since its early days under , and continued post-2008 Oracle acquisition, where the GPL version supports open-source integrations while commercial licenses target original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and independent software vendors (ISVs) for proprietary deployments. The model has evolved to address perceived extraction risks in cloud environments, shifting from traditional GPL dual licensing toward restrictive source-available licenses like the Business Source License (BSL) or . In January 2021, transitioned and from 2.0 to dual licensing under SSPL and the Elastic License 2.0 (ELv2), explicitly to prevent hyperscale cloud providers from offering atop the core without equivalent contributions or licensing fees, marking a tactical response to "openwashing" by service operators. This evolution maintains open-core hybridity by keeping basic functionality source-available for self-hosting while reserving advanced features and protections for commercial terms, thereby enhancing IP control in distributed systems. Such approaches mitigate certain legal risks inherent in pure open-source models by centralizing ownership and licensing decisions, which contrasts with distributed in community-led projects prone to disputes over interpretation or ; adopters of dual licensing report fewer code ownership conflicts due to explicit CLA-enforced terms, though challenges persist if contributions mix incompatible components.

Responses to Evolving OSS Ecosystem Challenges

In the open-core ecosystem, large cloud providers have increasingly offered derived from open-source components without substantial upstream contributions, eroding incentives for original developers to sustain development. To counter this free-riding, companies have adopted time-bound licensing models like the Business Source License (BSL), which permits broad use and modification but prohibits offering the software as a competitive hosted service for a defined period—typically three to four years—before converting to a fully permissive such as 2.0 or . This strategy blocks immediate commercialization by hyperscalers while preserving source availability, addressing sustainability threats without fully closing the code. HashiCorp exemplified this shift on August 10, 2023, when it relicensed products including , , and Vagrant from the to BSL v1.1, citing the need to protect against cloud vendors extracting value without fair compensation or investment reciprocity. The BSL's "change date" provision delays unrestricted commercial exploitation, allowing HashiCorp to maintain control over enterprise features in its open-core model while fostering community contributions during the interim. Similar experiments, such as Sentry's 2023 Functional Source License, extend this logic by tying openness to usage thresholds rather than fixed timelines, further tailoring restrictions to deter service-based free-riding. These licenses comply with core open-source tenets of source disclosure and non-discriminatory individual use under definitions like , though they fall outside full OSI approval as source-available rather than permissively open. In regulatory contexts, EU and antitrust frameworks have imposed negligible constraints, as such measures target specific competitive imbalances without evidencing market foreclosure or collusion sufficient to trigger scrutiny under laws like the Sherman Act or EU competition rules. Empirical observations in the link these adaptations to preserved development investment, as articulated by adopters like , which reported sustained product evolution post-change amid broader ecosystem pressures. Long-term revenue outcomes vary, with some analyses noting potential short-term gains offset by community migration risks.

Recent Trends and Developments

Shifts in 2020s Startup Landscape

In the early , the open-core model adapted to the surge in AI-driven startups, with funding numerous ventures that open-sourced foundational components while reserving proprietary extensions for monetization, such as scaling and enterprise integrations. For instance, LlamaFarm, a YC-backed company, employs an open-core approach to deliver production-ready AI components for retrieval-augmented generation () in regulated sectors, enabling community-driven enhancements to the core while charging for specialized add-ons. Similarly, Ollama, another YC alumnus topping the 2024 ROSS Index for open-source startups, facilitates local deployment through open tools but layers proprietary services for advanced users. GitLab CEO Sid Sijbrandij reinforced the model's viability in mid-2025, outlining strategies for scaling open-core businesses to venture levels via and selective proprietary features, drawing from 's trajectory of sustained user adoption exceeding 50 million registered users by 2024. This defense countered purist critiques by highlighting empirical growth, as 's annual recurring revenue climbed to over $700 million in fiscal 2025, attributing resilience to the structure's balance of virality and revenue predictability. Analyses from 2024-2025, including TechCrunch's ranking of top open-source startups, positioned open-core adopters among the fastest-growing entities, with firms like those in tooling achieving valuations in the billions despite broader ecosystem shifts toward permissive licensing. These metrics refute narratives of the model's obsolescence, as post-2020 venture data shows open-core startups securing disproportionate funding—over 40% of YC's open-source portfolio in recent batches—amid challenges like compute costs favoring controlled .

Alternatives and Model Evolutions

The rise of source-available licensing represents a key alternative to the open-core model, enabling companies to disclose while restricting its use in competing services, thereby safeguarding revenue streams without the bifurcation of open and proprietary components. In March 2024, Inc. relicensed its software from the permissive BSD 3-Clause to a dual model under the (RSALv2) and v1 (SSPLv1), explicitly to curb hyperscale cloud providers from offering undifferentiated that bypass contributions or payments. This shift prioritizes author control over unfettered modification and redistribution, addressing commercialization risks in commoditized where open-core's add-ons may prove insufficient against free-riding by service operators. Hybrid evolutions extend the open-core framework by integrating incentives for external contributions, such as bounties for targeted enhancements or nonprofit foundations to signal long-term stewardship and attract talent. Contributor bounty programs, facilitated through platforms that reward issue resolution in open components, mitigate the by aligning community efforts with proprietary roadmaps, as seen in projects emphasizing or feature parity. Similarly, establishing foundation arms—modeled after initiatives like the Foundation's Open Model Initiative for —bolsters credibility by decoupling governance from commercial interests, fostering ecosystems around core open elements while reserving advanced capabilities for paid tiers. These variants emerge causally from domain-specific pressures, including the imperative to protect non-code assets like AI training datasets, where unrestricted openness erodes differentiation faster than in traditional software; source-available restrictions or hybrid incentives thus preserve moats around and deployment expertise without fully closing the . Yet, from venture-backed analyses reveal the open-core model's endurance, with open-source firms outperforming closed-source peers in valuations by factors of up to sevenfold, indicating adaptations supplement rather than supplant it where enterprise-specific features sustain margins. No evidence supports wholesale migration, as permissive cores continue enabling broad adoption that funnels users toward proprietary value-adds.

References

  1. [1]
    What is open core model (open core software)? - TechTarget
    Apr 18, 2023 · The open core model is an approach to software development that combines attributes of both the Open Source and closed source models.
  2. [2]
    Open core vs. open source: What's the difference? - TechTarget
    Sep 29, 2022 · Open core is a hybrid software distribution and licensing model that combines the characteristics of the open source and closed source ...
  3. [3]
    What is open core? | Opensource.com
    Nov 23, 2021 · The open-core model primarily involves offering a 'core' or feature-limited version of a software product as free and open-source software.Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  4. [4]
    The Open Core Business Model - DEV Community
    Oct 24, 2020 · Examples include Elasticsearch, MongoDB, NGINX, MuleSoft and GitLab and use of the model seems to be growing. With Open Core, the open source ...
  5. [5]
    What is Open-Core? - Medium
    Mar 8, 2023 · Open Core is a business model used by some open-source software companies to provide additional (Paid) features or capabilities on top of a ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  6. [6]
    Open Core contradicts the spirit of open source - E3-Magazin
    Feb 10, 2022 · But the model gives pause for thought, because the interests of the vendors may differ from those of the community.
  7. [7]
    Open core is a misunderstood business model
    Jul 14, 2023 · Open core is a business model where only the 'core' software is open source, with the rest being proprietary, and it is built around open ...
  8. [8]
    Open Source Business Models: Open Core vs Crippled Core - Blog
    Jun 4, 2024 · Open Core is one of the very common ways to build a business around Open Source Software. It goes like this – you have an Open Source version of the software.Missing: advantages disadvantages
  9. [9]
    Why You Need an Open Source Software Strategy | BCG
    Apr 16, 2021 · Firms using this open core model – open source code at the core with proprietary code around it – offer a free product that is limited in ...
  10. [10]
    Open Source vs. Open Core: What's the Difference? - CMSWire
    Apr 15, 2019 · Gartner analyst Nick Heudecker breaks open source vs. open core down this way: "Open core are commercial products built on an open source ...Missing: distinction | Show results with:distinction
  11. [11]
    What's the difference between open-source, open-core, and source ...
    Open core is a somewhat hybrid model that combines open and closed-source software. As the name suggests, open core products often open-up their core ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  12. [12]
    Open Source or Open Core: Why Should You Care? - Red Hat
    Feb 25, 2015 · The open core development model, where vendors open only portions of their software and then surround the remainder with proprietary-by-vendor ...Missing: pure distinction
  13. [13]
    Three Models for Commercializing Open Source Software
    Nov 27, 2019 · Companies like Elastic, D2iQ (formerly Mesosphere), and GitLab have raised >$100M each. Some open core companies have even successfully raised ...
  14. [14]
    Monetizing Open Source: Business Models That Generate Billions
    Sep 15, 2020 · The open core revenue model is widely accepted as fair, but open source companies must execute it with finesse to avoid alienating their user ...
  15. [15]
    The history of MySQL AB - Dries Buytaert
    Mar 8, 2010 · MySQL AB was founded in 1995, went open source in 2000, and was acquired by Sun Microsystems in 2008. It was started by Michael Widenius, David ...Missing: origins | Show results with:origins
  16. [16]
    MySQL enters a new decade! - Oracle Blogs
    Dec 23, 2024 · 2000: MySQL AB adopted the GNU General Public License (GPL), reinforcing its commitment to open source. 2001: The emblematic MySQL 3.23 was ...
  17. [17]
    MySQL takes cue from the master - CNET
    Apr 14, 2004 · A different model MySQL has a novel open-source business model designed to appeal to smaller companies. The company offers its product under ...
  18. [18]
    MySQL Profits From Open Source - WIRED
    Feb 23, 2004 · Database software using the same model is getting some play. MySQL is giving established software firms a run for their money.
  19. [19]
    Sun Shines the $1 Billion Light on MySQL Acquisition - WIRED
    Jan 16, 2008 · The acquisition of MySQL AB gives Sun a solid competitor to Oracle's enterprise database which is closed source and can cost up to $40,000, ...
  20. [20]
    MongoDB ft. Dev Ittycheria: Early Pivot, Open Source Movement
    Roelof Botha: In 2009, MongoDB launched for public use. Dwight Merriman: The product was open source, so we were really trying to execute an open source, go-to ...
  21. [21]
    Elastic -- The Evolution of Open Source - Index Ventures
    Oct 5, 2018 · In February of 2010, a developer called Shay Banon open sourced a piece of software called Elasticsearch. Shay was no novice to search ...Missing: unicorn | Show results with:unicorn
  22. [22]
    Oracle prepares to complete Sun takeover - The Guardian
    Jan 22, 2010 · Oracle's $7.4bn takeover of software rival Sun Microsystems looks set to go through after European regulators finally gave their approval to the deal.Missing: core debate
  23. [23]
    Many open-sourcers back an Oracle takeover of MySQL - InfoWorld
    Oct 28, 2009 · Observers say that Oracle's acquisition of MySQL will not be damaging to MySQL itself and question the motives of some detractors.Missing: core | Show results with:core
  24. [24]
    Open Core is the New Dual Licensing - RedMonk
    Jun 30, 2010 · The open core model, as its critics are well aware, is no panacea for open source software revenue generation. It gains an edge, to be sure – ...Missing: maturation | Show results with:maturation
  25. [25]
    Open Core Model
    Open core is a hybrid software development and licensing model that includes open source and proprietary software. It typically consists of an open source ...Missing: principles definition
  26. [26]
    What Is Open-Core Business Model? - Woofresh
    Clearly document which parts are open or proprietary, Avoids confusion. Security Updates, Provide security fixes for all versions, Builds trust with users.
  27. [27]
    Preventing the bait and switch by open core software companies
    Oct 21, 2022 · At any point, an open core company using a permissive software license and/or a Contributor License Agreement (CLA) can decide to “push the ...
  28. [28]
    Contributor License Agreements - Google Open Source
    Our CLA allows open source projects administered by Google to safely accept code and documentation from external contributors.Missing: core | Show results with:core
  29. [29]
    GitLab Transitions Contributor Licensing to Developer Certificate of ...
    Nov 1, 2017 · GitLab today announced it was abandoning the industry-standard Contributor License Agreement in favor of a Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO) and license.Missing: 2015 | Show results with:2015<|separator|>
  30. [30]
    Individual contributor license agreement - GitLab Docs
    You accept and agree to the following terms and conditions for Your present and future Contributions submitted to GitLab Inc.
  31. [31]
    Introducing a CLA to Open Source Contributions - HashiCorp
    Dec 19, 2018 · We're introducing a CLA (Contributor License Agreement) requirement for any and all contributions across our open source projects.
  32. [32]
    Governance | Meshed Insights Ltd
    Contributor agreements (CLAs) allow companies to aggregate software rights, potentially ignoring licenses, and enabling secret deals, and changing licenses ...
  33. [33]
    Open Core - Daytona
    The open core model is a business strategy employed by companies engaged in open source software development. Under this model, a company offers a foundational ...
  34. [34]
    https://sergeycyw.substack.com/p/mongodb-gaining-ground-in-the-96b
  35. [35]
    Pricing - GitLab
    On this page we represent our pricing strategy which can be further filtered based on our buyer-based open core pricing model. Features and Benefits. Show ...GitLab features · Why GitLab Ultimate? · Why GitLab Premium? · Talk to sales
  36. [36]
    Doubling down on open, Part II | Elastic Blog
    Jan 14, 2021 · We are moving our Apache 2.0-licensed source code in Elasticsearch and Kibana to be dual licensed under Server Side Public License (SSPL) and the Elastic ...<|separator|>
  37. [37]
    Redis is now available under the AGPLv3 open source license
    May 1, 2025 · To counter this, companies like MongoDB and Elastic adopted SSPL to protect their business from cloud providers extracting value without ...Missing: rationale | Show results with:rationale
  38. [38]
    The Dark Side of MongoDB's New License - ScyllaDB
    Oct 22, 2018 · MongoDB, the most prevalent NoSQL OSS vendor, which just changed its license from AGPL license to a new, more-restrictive license called SSPL.<|separator|>
  39. [39]
    MongoDB (MDB) Market Cap & Net Worth - Stock Analysis
    MongoDB has a market cap or net worth of $27.14 billion as of October 24, 2025. Its market cap has increased by 33.36% in one year. Market Cap. 27.14B.
  40. [40]
    MongoDB, Inc. (MDB) Stock Price, News, Quote & History
    Market Cap. 26.55B. Enterprise Value. 24.24B. Trailing P/E. --. Forward P/E. 76.92. PEG Ratio (5yr expected). --. Price/Sales (ttm). 11.56. Price/Book (mrq).Statistics · Community · Profile · Chart
  41. [41]
    Elastic Stack: (ELK) Elasticsearch, Kibana & Logstash
    Meet the search platform that helps you search, solve, and succeed. It's comprised of Elasticsearch, Kibana, Beats, and Logstash (also known as the ELK Stack) ...Missing: core | Show results with:core
  42. [42]
    elastic/elasticsearch: Free and Open Source, Distributed ... - GitHub
    Elasticsearch is the foundation of Elastic's open Stack platform. Search in near real-time over massive datasets, perform vector searches, integrate with ...Issues · Elasticsearch Labs · Releases 217 · Pull requests 1k
  43. [43]
    Amazon: NOT OK - why we had to change Elastic licensing
    Jan 19, 2021 · Our license change is aimed at preventing companies from taking our Elasticsearch and Kibana products and providing them directly as a service ...
  44. [44]
    FAQ on Software Licensing - Elastic
    In 2021, we made the hard decision to move the Open Source portions of Elasticsearch and Kibana source code to non-OSI approved software licenses - SSPL and ...
  45. [45]
    Elasticsearch vs MongoDB: 6 Key Differences - NetApp
    May 18, 2021 · MongoDB is an open-source NoSQL database management program, which can be used to manage large amounts of data in a distributed architecture.Missing: examples adoption
  46. [46]
    Announcing Amazon OpenSearch Service which Supports ...
    Sep 8, 2021 · On January 21, 2021, Elastic NV announced that they would change their software licensing strategy. After Elasticsearch version 7.10.2 and ...<|separator|>
  47. [47]
    AWS Open-Source Brouhaha About Elasticsearch Takes Another Turn
    Sep 16, 2024 · Elastic ceased making open source options available for Elasticsearch and Kibana, releasing them under the Elastic license, with source code ...
  48. [48]
    GitLab vs GitHub: Explore Their Major Differences and Similarities
    Oct 18, 2023 · It launched in 2008, while GitLab started as an open source project in 2011. But with built-in continuous integration features, and a free ...
  49. [49]
    GitLab is a DevSecOps platform with open-source at its core
    Oct 31, 2019 · GitLab aims to become a complete DevSecOps platform. This means development and operations, but with security as an integral part.
  50. [50]
    Looking back on the 11.x releases for GitLab CI/CD
    Jun 19, 2019 · With the 11.9 release (March 2019), operations like adding, removing, or changing Feature Flags are now recorded in the GitLab audit log, giving ...
  51. [51]
    gtlb-20240131 - SEC.gov
    We generated revenue of $579.9 million and $424.3 million in fiscal 2024 and 2023, respectively, representing growth of 37%. During this period, we continued to ...
  52. [52]
    Gitlab Inc. (Form: 10-Q, Received: 09/04/2024) - EDGAR Online
    Jul 31, 2024 · GitLab is the only DevSecOps platform built on an open-core business model. ... Our revenue growth may slow or our revenue may decline for a ...
  53. [53]
    Open sourcing Cody | Sourcegraph Blog
    Mar 27, 2023 · Open core allows us to preserve our pricing power for enterprises while still making all our source code public. There are differing opinions ...
  54. [54]
    Vault - HashiCorp Developer
    Secure, store, and tightly control access to tokens, passwords, certificates, encryption keys for protecting secrets, and other sensitive data.
  55. [55]
    Sun To Acquire MySQL for $1 Billion - Visual Studio Magazine
    Jan 16, 2008 · Sun Microsystems today said it will acquire MySQL, the leading supplier of open source database software, for $1 billion.Missing: pre- | Show results with:pre-
  56. [56]
    [PDF] The Commercial Open Source Business Model
    This paper presents the core properties of commercial open source business models and discusses how they work. Using a commercial open source ap- proach, firms ...
  57. [57]
    MongoDB (MDB) - Market capitalization - Companies Market Cap
    As of October 2025 MongoDB has a market cap of $27.13 Billion USD. This makes MongoDB the world's 840th most valuable company according to our data.
  58. [58]
    GitLab jumps in Nasdaq debut after pricing IPO above expected range
    Oct 14, 2021 · GitLab raised close to $650 million in the offering, and investors purchased over $150 million of additional stock from an entity affiliated ...
  59. [59]
    Open Source Infrastructure is Breaking Down Due to Corporate ...
    Sep 24, 2025 · The scale is staggering. These registries serve billions, perhaps even trillions, of downloads each month. AI companies are scraping entire ...
  60. [60]
    The Open Source Business Metrics Guide - Scarf.sh
    This guide is built for those project mantainers, product owners, and executives at open source based companies who are responsible for growth and adoption.
  61. [61]
    Open Source Software: The $9 Trillion Resource Companies Take ...
    Mar 22, 2024 · Many companies build their businesses on open source software, code that would cost firms $8.8 trillion to create from scratch if it weren't freely available.Missing: core | Show results with:core
  62. [62]
    Open Core is Not a Good Story - /dev/lawyer
    Sep 25, 2019 · “Open Core” is apologetic and self-defeating. Address business realities, fairness, and mission instead. “Open core” means proprietary ...Missing: purists objections<|separator|>
  63. [63]
    Is Open Core considered a bastardization of Open Source? - Reddit
    Aug 3, 2022 · But overall, no, open core is not considered to be a bastardization of OSS. If you were to pull together a top 20 list 'oss companies' the vast ...Is open-core really a "twisted production model"?Opensource vs OpencoreMore results from www.reddit.comMissing: purists ideological objections
  64. [64]
    On the lack of ambiguity at the heart of 'Open Core' - ambiguiti.es
    Sep 20, 2019 · The reason why people don't like the Open Core approach is that it doubles-down on the negative form of liberty, turning Open Source into a dead ...
  65. [65]
    A standard pricing model for open core
    Jan 4, 2023 · According to the OSI's statement on open core, the fundamental problem is that open core is just a nickname for proprietary software and shares ...
  66. [66]
    The incompatibility of open core and profit - Hacker News
    Mar 5, 2023 · The model is fundamentally incompatible with running a for-profit enterprise due to obvious (and explicitly pointed out in the article) misaligned incentives.
  67. [67]
    Misunderstanding open source #3: applying 'Free Software' religion ...
    Oct 5, 2009 · The open core model only works if the open source software is full-featured and valuable. If it is not there will be no community, and no ...
  68. [68]
    About OpenSearch
    The OpenSearch Project was first announced in January 2021 as an open-source fork of Elasticsearch and Kibana to provide a secure, high-quality, fully open ...
  69. [69]
    OpenSearch: How the Project Went From Fork to Foundation
    Nov 26, 2024 · The OpenSearch project began as a fork of Elasticsearch; in 2021, Elasticsearch's open source Apache 2.0 license was changed to a more ...
  70. [70]
    Redis returns to the open source fold - Computing UK
    May 2, 2025 · As a direct result of the licensing switch in March 2024, the Redis codebase was forked to create Valkey, licensed under the permissive open ...
  71. [71]
    Fed up with cloud giants ripping off its database, MongoDB forks ...
    Oct 16, 2018 · Fed up with cloud giants ripping off its database, MongoDB forks new 'open-source license' · Paperwork demands code from internet goliaths · Redis ...<|separator|>
  72. [72]
    Homebrew removes MongoDB from core formulas - Hacker News
    Sep 2, 2019 · MongoDB deciding to no longer offer a true open source option for their software is exploitative and a slap in the face to every open source ...Missing: crippled | Show results with:crippled
  73. [73]
    Commercial License for OEMs, ISVs and VARs - MySQL
    Oracle provides its MySQL database server and MySQL Client Libraries under a dual license model designed to meet the development and distribution needs of both ...
  74. [74]
    Why open core, GPL and dual licensing is a model that works
    Oct 11, 2023 · This article sets out why I think that the classic open core development model, with a GPL license and dual licensing for OEM vendors, are the right knobs and ...Missing: mechanisms CLA
  75. [75]
    Dual Licensing Explained: Top 3 Software Licensing Models
    Feb 23, 2017 · Dual licensing usually refers to licensing software under both a proprietary license and an open source license, typically the GPL.
  76. [76]
    Dual-Licensing Open Source Software: The Good, The Bad ... - Blog
    Mar 5, 2024 · Dual licensing (or multi-licensing) is the practice of releasing source code under multiple licenses. Most open source software is published and distributed ...
  77. [77]
    1.4 MySQL Dual Licensing - Litux
    The GNU General Public License (GPL) is intended for open source usage of MySQL, where applications based on MySQL are also distributed under the GPL.
  78. [78]
    Elastic License Update | Elastic Blog
    Jun 3, 2021 · In January 2021, we announced that starting with version 7.11, we would be changing the Apache 2.0 portions of Elasticsearch and Kibana source ...Missing: BSL core<|separator|>
  79. [79]
    Elasticsearch Moves to Source Available SSPL
    Under this model, an open source project is the foundation (or 'core') from which the commercial product is built and licensed under a proprietary license.
  80. [80]
    The Risks of Dual Licensing in The Pioneering Landscape of ...
    Rating 5.0 (16) Jan 24, 2025 · One of the most pressing concerns is the potential for license incompatibility. For instance, if a project is dual-licensed under a permissive ...
  81. [81]
    HashiCorp adopts Business Source License
    Aug 10, 2023 · HashiCorp adopts the Business Source License to ensure continued investment in its community and to continue providing open, freely available products.
  82. [82]
    Terraform License Change (BSL) - Impact on Users & Providers
    Aug 10, 2023 · On August 10, 2023, HashiCorp changed licensing for all its products, including Terraform ... HashiCorp announces Terraform BSL license change.
  83. [83]
    With Functional Source License, Sentry wants to grant developers ...
    Nov 20, 2023 · The company's open source chief Chad Whitacre says the license is for any SaaS firm that wishes to “grant freedom without harmful free-riding.”.
  84. [84]
    The BSL is a short-term fix: Why we choose open source
    Sep 8, 2023 · The new license that HashiCorp has chosen for its products, the Business Source License (BSL), is no longer open source, but instead source-available.
  85. [85]
    Infrastructure Startups funded by Y Combinator (YC) 2025
    LlamaFarm helps enterprises in regulated industries build and deploy AI applications with our open-core model, providing production-ready components for RAG ...<|separator|>
  86. [86]
    The 20 hottest open source startups of 2024 - TechCrunch
    Mar 22, 2025 · In top spot on the 2024 ROSS Index is Ollama, a Y Combinator alum that's built an open source tool for running LLMs such as Meta's Llama and ...
  87. [87]
    Building an open core business with @Open Core Ventures - LinkedIn
    Jul 28, 2025 · There is no perfect playbook, but there are proven strategies for building an open core business. I recently shared these strategies with ...Missing: defends 2024
  88. [88]
    Licenses - Redis
    There are no plans to change or add to the current Redis Open Source license configuration. Because our primary motivation for changing our license to RSALv2/ ...Missing: strains | Show results with:strains
  89. [89]
    Redis tightens its license terms, pleasing no one - The Register
    Mar 22, 2024 · Starting with Redis 7.4, Redis will be dual-licensed under the Redis Source Available License (RSALv2) and Server Side Public License (SSPLv1).Missing: RSAL | Show results with:RSAL
  90. [90]
    Redis license update: What you need to know | Microsoft Azure Blog
    Mar 20, 2024 · Redis is moving away from the BSD 3-Clause License to a dual-license model, offering developers the choice between the Redis Source Available License version 2 ...Missing: RSAL | Show results with:RSAL
  91. [91]
    Moving Away From Open Source: Trends in Source-Available ...
    Sep 25, 2024 · Companies are increasingly transitioning from open-source licenses to more restrictive “source-available” licenses to better control commercial and competitive ...
  92. [92]
    Studying backers and hunters in bounty issue addressing process of ...
    There are two types of core roles who are involved in this process: bounty backers, who propose bounties for an issue report via bounty platforms (e.g., ...
  93. [93]
    Linux Foundation Welcomes the Open Model Initiative to Promote ...
    The OMI aims to foster the creation and adoption of high-quality, openly licensed AI models that push creativity forward, are free to use, and meet the growing ...<|separator|>
  94. [94]
    Data Moats Are Dead: The New Competitive Advantages in an AI ...
    Jul 20, 2025 · The data moats that companies spent billions building are evaporating faster than venture capital in a bear market.
  95. [95]
    The State of Commercial Open Source 2025 - Linux Foundation
    Drawing on 25 years of venture data from 800 VC-backed startups, this report shows that commercial open source software consistently outperforms closed source ...Missing: persistence | Show results with:persistence<|separator|>
  96. [96]
    New Research Debunks Open Source Business Model Myths
    Aug 26, 2025 · The study shatters open source business myths: COSS companies achieve 7x higher valuations, proving community and commerce aren't mutually ...
  97. [97]
    The Commercial Open Source Report, 2024 | by Matthieu Lavergne
    Apr 23, 2024 · We take a deep dive into the world of VC-backed commercial open-source companies. We explores the various facets of the COSS ecosystem.